While I am all for Net Neutrality, what people need to realize is it has only been around for 2 years. There was no NN before that. So that should bring some perspective here and maybe ease some of the concerns. There is not much we can do except publicly comment on the FCC's link above, or write / contact our representatives. Other than that, just remember that NN is fairly new and before it was implemented, things were actually fine.

The FCC is still accepting public comments here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express. The proceeding number is 17-108. Note the disclaimer about public availability of your personal information via the web. I strongly recommend using a throwaway email address, as the FCC & Congress rolled back internet privacy rules earlier this year (https://goo.gl/ZBgQtq)

If you want an easy to understand look at this issue search " Portugal Net neutrality " and look at the article from BusinessInsider.com today. The article shows you how this is being played out in Portugal as we speak. In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages. So for example you want to use social media there is a package that you have to pay for that...you want to use Netflix there is another package for that. The tiers are split into Messaging, Social, Video, music and email. Its just another cash grab for companies like Comcast and AT&T, who get to charge everyone else piles of money for nothing they aren't doing now.

Net Neutrality is a different issue than the Cox local monopoly. Our city can do little to impact the former, but can do lots with regard to the latter. And should! We need to open up broadband service providers in SB to create more competition which would likely have the effect of improving service offerings and reducing prices.

It's amazing how many people think this is Trump's fault. Just goes to show how uninformed people are and how they will blame him for anything. Trump Derangement Syndrome really is getting bad. People - the FCC has been trying to do this for years and Obama making ISPs the same as utilities did not help this issue at all. Put aside your emotions towards Trump, get informed.

I'm particularly concerned because I don't have a landline, & rely on VOIP services and Wifi assist for calls.
Here's an interesting/scary list put together by a reddit user (original post here: https://goo.gl/XVcnhF):
"2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bs. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
The foundation of Reason's argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet."

The city council could require that Cox not mess with our data streams and if they do, game over and contract breached so another provider can come in. However, I also believe that the new rules will prohibit municipalities from overriding federal rules by doing so. So, possibly they cannot do anything except allow other ISPs in to ensure competition should Cox start throttling down our data streams based on content.

There certainly is a wealth of misinformation about just what is "Net Neutrality" and who/what caused it. It has nothing to do with Trump or the current administration. It has been bouncing around in the FCC and the Federal Courts since 2002. All the dire predictions from one side or the other are way overblown.

JQB is a perfect example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. BC he/she has no actual facts or logic or argument he/she will launch personal attacks. So typical. I suspect he/she is a libtard, supposedly tolerant and loving towards others. Pfft. People like JQB are why Trump won.

JQB is a perfect example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. BC he/she has no actual facts or logic or argument he/she will launch personal attacks. So typical. I suspect he/she is a libtard, supposedly tolerant and loving towards others. Pfft. People like JQB are why Trump won.

JQB is a perfect example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. BC he/she has no actual facts or logic or argument he/she will launch personal attacks. So typical. I suspect he/she is a libtard, supposedly tolerant and loving towards others. Pfft. People like JQB are why Trump won.

Yes, there is a wealth of misinformation and ignorant, dimwitted, and dishonest Trumpkins like you are busy spreading it. Trump put in place the FCC's corporate-owned majority in order to end net neutrality.

Another great corporate welfare give away via the government. Yes, it could completely ruin many small businesses and foster even more monopolies or oligopolies. This country does need some real structural change. Unfortunately, the average citizen gets their information and thus their opinions handled to them by these same corporations, filtered through the six o'clock news on cable and Satellite TV. Easily manipulated and controlled. The odds are pretty stacked against the consumer, aka " US" .

We need to discuss the impact of this with family members as we sit around the Thanksgiving dinner table. This is an assault on free speech, and it is the President's doing. We need a President who values the principles upon which this Country was founded. I feel it will take a Democratic Legislature and President to undo this.

This has nothing to do with the President. It has been going around in the FCC and the Federal Courts since 2002. The recent news is that the Court has said the FCC can't limit how the information providers provide their services.

Cox will milk this change for all it is worth. It will charge for access on both sides, the sources and the users. If you want to appear on Cox you pay and if you want to see it you pay. This monopoly of our information sources needs to be changed, after all isn't competition the core of capitalism?

"isn't competition the core of capitalism?"
No, making as much as you can by any means that you can ... including buying off politicians ... is the core of capitalism. Capitalists hate competition because it means less for them.

Also very concerned here. Paywalls, pushing certain sites, turning the whole openness of the web into nothing more than what we get on TV, completely commercially driven. It was so predictable. Oligolopoly is right! It's not about having only one ISP in town, it's about all the ISPs controlling the content we see. Mayor has no more control over that than each of us does. It's the FCC. I hope there will be lawsuits. It's an attack on civil society, on democracy.

Not directed at you, Mt. Dr. I hope everyone expressing concern has written to or called congresspeople. It's weird here in CA, where all the politicians are liberal. It helps to express your support to them. I do call senators & reps in other states. I do tell them that I contribute money to fight against them (just trying to get out-of-district politicians to listen, but I do also give $. Move On, Act Blue, ACLU, PP. And directly to those running against conservatives.) I give them my opinion. At least I feel I'm doing **something.**

Of course I'm concerned! It redounds to our "president" and his administration. I assume it will be taken to court. I support organizations that sue the administration for myriad reasons.
AT&T & Time Warner will be interesting too. Is "president" fighting this due to CNN? It's possible. Anything is possible in this administration.

This has nothing to do with the President. It has been going around in the FCC and the Federal Courts since 2002. The recent news is that the Court has said the FCC can't limit how the information providers provide their services.

It's very scary for small online businesses. Think edhat for example, Cox could very easily say edhat and any other local news, isn't in our "internet tier" so we couldn't read them. We'd only be able to get the LA Times or whatever other organization has the money to pay for the increased traffic. This could literally kill small-time news, which as we've been seeing lately, is more reliable since they're not financially tied to politicians or advertisers.